Russian Federation

International Focus

Background and History

On 21 January 2009, the first
Russian FOI law [1] was passed by the Duma – the Federal Law “On providing
access to information on the activities of government bodies and bodies of
local self-government”. FreedomOfInfo note its distinction as the longest-debated
bill in the Duma. It came into force a year later, January 2010. [2]. As of
2010, four regions of Russia also had their own FOI Acts. [3]

Prime Minister Vladamir Putin pledged
to the accuracy of what information would be accessible to the public: “The
information offered to the people should not differ from the reality of a
particular agency everyday operation. Otherwise our project will compromise
itself from the very beginning”.[4]

The
Institute for Information Freedom Development, based in St Petersburg,
published a report in 2008 regarding how accessible information was from
various Russia state organisations. The 1993 Russian Constitution, Article 23 “guarantees the right “to freely seek and
obtain information about the activities of state organs and organs of local
administration.” However, the Institution
found this right was very inconsistently applied, and concluded that “Actual
access to the information concerning the governmental bodies operation requires
lots of time and efforts, lots of nerves and money. People believe that their
right to have access to the information has to be “proved” or that the
information needed can be received only through personal relations or with a
lot of money, in other words, only through alternative – not necessarily legal
– means of influence on the officials.”
[5]

The Institute believes “that passing the FOI Law is an important
consequence” of its 2008 report, it receiving attention from other NGOs and
the media. The Institute also encouraged citizens to write letters to President Medvedev,
lobbying the legislators and educating government officials to press for a FOI
law. [6]

Hopes were not
especially high for the success of the Act, despite its passing: FreedomofInfo
noted little coverage of the Act’s passing in the mainstream media, despite the
interest of FOI and human rights NGOs. “There is still a great deal of scepticism…
due to the historical lax attitude to law among Russian bureaucrats and the
prevailing culture of corruption.” [7] Information manipulation is common:
During the conflict with Georgia in 2008, Georgian online news media and Georgian government
websites were attacked by hackers, linked to Russian state businesses. [8]

A study in 2009 by the International Press Institute
[9], used journalists in 12 different countries to
assess how government departments
provided basic information to media organisations when asked. The requests were limited to ‘informal
requests for straightforward information – the kind that should be easily
available without recourse to Freedom of Information legislation’. Russia was
ranked eighth. The Global Integrity Index of 2010 noted while Russian citizens
has a strong constitutional right to information (scoring 90 out of 100), the
actual ability of citizens to utilise this right was very limited (scoring only
56/100). [10]

Provisions

The law is significant, “For the first time in the Russian history, the law positively
guarantees the rights of Russian citizens to request and receive information,
outlines a procedure for such requests, and determines government
responsibility for providing such information.” The presumption is for openness of government
business, with the exception of information classified as state secrets. [11]

The law provides
the administrative detail to realise the right given in the Constitution, and
includes a legal definition for the term “information about the work of
government organs.” [12]

Time frames for
requests are 30 days, and a department should transfer the request if it does not hold the information and knows who does.

Refusals and exemptions

Article
19 note the unique exemptions regime of the law: Unlike most other laws, it
does not set out in detail the circumstances under which access to information
may be refused. Instead, the exemptions are in the remit of already existing
legislation: “access ‘shall be limited if such data and records are
treated as classified information or confidential information under the Russian
Federal legislation.’” Further, for local government, each local government
department is required to draw up a list of documents or categories of
documents that will be exempt. [13]

There
is no public interest override in regards to the exemptions. “The reference
to drawing up categories of documents to which the public may have no access
implies that requests will not be considered on a case-by-case basis, which is
contrary to the whole thrust of the ARTICLE 19 Principles and Council of Europe
Recommendation.” [14]

Any refusal to provide information must be notified to the applicant,
along with the legal provision relied upon for such refusal (Article 16).

Refusing to provide the information is allowed on the following administrative
grounds:

Contact address and name
of requester not provided

Request does not relate
to the organisation in question

The information is not
help

The information was
already provided to the same requester

Appeals

Citizens are not
required to show any justification for their requests, and they can sue the
government for damages incurred as a result of violations of their right of
access: “Decisions and actions (omissions) of bodies… that violate the right to
access information…can be appealed to a higher body or to higher official or in
court. 2. If as a result of wrongful refusal in access to information…
or its untimely granting, or granting of intentionally misleading information
or information not corresponding to the content of the request, the information
user was caused damages, such damages are subject to compensation according to
the civil legislation of the Russian Federation.” (Article 23)

Technology and
fees

The law has a
proactive publication aspect, instructing government agencies to disseminate
information about their activities on the internet – their functions, staff and
contact email addresses and telephone numbers. Fees for requests are only applicable
where multiple paper copies are requested, postage is involved, or where the
scope of the request is very large. [15]

Article 19 looked
at the draft law back in 2003, and while applauding the efforts made, recommended
changes. It noted while some of the regime’s procedural aspects – time limits,
fees etc – were robust, it criticised the regime being restricted to state and
local government only. It also criticised the omission of mandatory training
for public officials, and the fact the regime exists alongside other secrecy
laws, not overriding them. Article 19 also lamented the Act does not created a
separate, independent appeals body.

Operation

The Russian FOI
law has been criticised for a variety of reasons since it was enacted in 2010
and the IIFD has continued to campaign for improvements. This April, Institute
Chairman Ivan Pavlov noted, “as it is often the case in our country, coming
into force did not mean that the laws have been actually obeyed. Governmental
agencies pretended not to see the obvious provisions in the text of the laws,
continuing to hide any information concerning their operations. Often, even the
courts refused to protest the right of Russian
citizens to get access to information even though it had been guaranteed by law.”
[16]

Pavolv explained
the situation by referring to the tension between Russia’s attempts to enter
the global community, and the “strong desire to keep unrestricted power
based on the accessibility of information.” The fact that so few citizens
are aware of the FOI regime also weakens its operation. [17]

There is hope
however. The IIFD’s monitoring of government website ‘openness’, has seen a 10
per cent increase in xxx over 2009 levels. The IIFD attribute this less to the
FOI law being passed, and more to the change in research methods for the 2010
monitoring. [18]

Developments

The
Institute for Information Freedom Development has developed a guidebook to help
requesters: ‘how to request information, how to react to information denials,
and how to apply to court in order to contest information denial and to bring
officials negliging [sic] their duties to responsibility.’ [19] It is hoped
this guidance will spur more use of the law.

There are some other
small improvements. Dissenting opinions of judges are now being published
online for the first time, and the Moscow City Court is going to publish
applications from officials and politicians, in an attempt to “eliminate
behind-the-scenes influence upon the judicial power branch as well as any
pressure on judges, therefore promoting judicial independence.” [20]

But media and
academic freedoms are still at risk. Only last month, Reporters Without Borders condemned the seizure of all
40,000 copies of Izvestia Kaliningrada, a weekly broadsheet published in
Russia’s western exclave of Kaliningrad. “It was the latest example of
regional governors abusing their power to silence media that annoy them.”
[21]

In May 2009, commemorating the anniversary of victory in the
Great Patriotic War, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev issued a decree creating
a Commission to Counteract Attempts of Falsification of History, which
will review textbooks, documentaries, and scholarly publications to judge
whether authors treat Russia’s recent history, especially the history of World
War II, “correctly.” The Guardian reported the Commission would be made
up of FSB intelligence service officers rather than professional historians.
Medvedev said the Commission would combat foreign "revisionists".
[22]

In late September 2011, the IIFD published an analytical
review of problems with the observance and implementation of archive
information access law in Russia. They are advocating a number of amendments to
address issues of secrecy and declassification; “in particular, they speak
for clear legislative definitions for “administrative”, “personal”,
and “family” secret. Up to now, these terms are rather vaguely
interpreted by subordinate normative acts and quite often used by officials as
explanation for archive information access denial.” The report at this time
is only available in Russian. [23]

References

[1] “On providing access to information on the activities of government
bodies and bodies of local self-government” (Text
in English), http://www.svobodainfo.org/en/node/439

[13] Article 19, Memorandum on the Russian federal draft Law “On Access to Information Concerning Activities of Government Departments and Local
Self-Government”, March 2003, http://www.article19.org/data/files/pdfs/analysis/russia.foi.01.pdf

[23] The Institute for Information
Freedom Development Freedom of Information Foundation (IIFD), Analysis of Law Enforcement Practice in the
Field of Access to Archive Information, http://www.svobodainfo.org/en/node/1326

FOI on the blog

On 1 March, to some surprise, the Burns Commission concluded that the Freedom of Information Act was ‘generally working well’. Ben Worthy and Robert Hazell explain how the Commission came to this unexpected result and, drawing on the results three major research projects, argue that since it came into force in 2005 FOI has achieved […]

In July 2015 the government appointed a new independent commission to look into how the law on freedom of information (FOI) is working. Here, Ben Worthy, Peter John and Matia Vannoni explain how their field experiment provides evidence that FOI requests work, and that they are twice as likely to get a response than informal requests. […]

On Friday of last week, the government announced a new commission on Freedom of Information. Here, Ben Worthy offers his response to the announcement, arguing that the objections to the scope and usage of FOI that have been raised are nothing new, and furthermore aren’t unique to the UK. Further, he argues that the commission’s remit tilts […]